Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Justin]

Originally Posted by coadie

Richard Dawkins discussion board is closed. I asked Richard the leader in atheism/evolution on the planet to comment on this suicide. They deleted my post for some reason.

That's just one place where I found it. Just google "Acceptance Evolution".

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

http://www.creationists.org/evolutio...-religion.html

Yes the Darwinists claim their documents are authoritative and the Christians documents are not.

Stop reading creationists propaganda. Evolution is not a religion. Anyone that says so is being intellectually dishonest about what a religion is.

Creationists do the biggest discredit to themselves when then behave this way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism
Darwinism is a set of movements and concepts related to ideas of transmutation of species or evolution, including ideas with no connection to the work of Charles Darwin. The meaning of Darwinism has changed over time, and varies depending on who is using the term. In the United States, Darwinism is often used by creationists as a pejorative term but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a short hand for evolutionary theory.


The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860, and was used to describe evolutionary concepts, including earlier concepts such as Malthusianism and Spencerism. In the late 19th century it came to mean the concept that natural selection was the sole mechanism of evolution, in contrast to Lamarckism, then around 1900 it was eclipsed by Mendelism until the modern evolutionary synthesis unified Darwin's and Gregor Mendel's ideas. As modern evolutionary theory has developed, the term has been associated at times with specific ideas.


While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors, it is increasingly regarded as an inappropriate description of modern evolutionary theory.For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel, having as a result only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity, and knew nothing of genetic drift.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Stop reading creationists propaganda. Evolution is not a religion. Anyone that says so is being intellectually dishonest about what a religion is.

Creationists do the biggest discredit to themselves when then behave this way

.

That is exactly why Evolution is presented as a religion.

Teleology
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

Both the religions of Christianity and naturalism/darwinism offer answers.
How did we come about being here? what is our Purpose and where are we going. Religion discusses teleology.

I have been called intellectually dishonest. Yes I know what i am talking about. I also am not naive regarding the agenda of the evolutionists.

It woulld be dishonest to act like we don't know what is going on.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/creationism-law

The goals of Eugenie Scott are to get people fired that mention religion and creation in the classroom. Religion is a threat to the false religion of evolutionism. She names the court cases. It will not get a biiology teacher fired if they attack Religion.

[coadie]

I have been told atheism is not a religion.

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Mother nature is the naturalists deity.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Richard Dawkins discussion board is closed. I asked Richard the leader in atheism/evolution on the planet to comment on this suicide. They deleted my post for some reason.

Dawkin's board was "closed." So you posted a question about the closing of the board, on the board itself? And then they deleted your post from the board that had been "closed" all along?

How cruelly you must have suffered.

Originally Posted by coadie

Evolution must be a religion if a biology instructor is handing out God delusion books. for reading.

They don't hand out religions commentaries in ceramics classes.

The "evolution is a religion" argument never seems to offer any facts to support its view. We are left only with an argument by analogy. "Both the words 'evolution' and 'religion' contain the letter 'E' - thus, they are the same!"

The fact of the matter is, there are no "sacred cows" in science, as there are in religion. Every opinion and testimony is held up to scrutiny and hashed out endlessly. The modern "Theory of Evolution" has stood up to a more vociferous debate than such religious claims as "Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch" and other Fundamentalist claims.

The University of Paris (The Sorbonne) had never even seated a Darwinist as the head of its School of Evolutionary Biology until 1959! The French were absolutely adamant that the "English" theory of Darwinism could not have overturned their beloved Lamarck. And yet, eventually the better theory won out.

"Science" asks, "What's the truth?" and then studies every angle without regard to the personal feelings or positions held by the various advocates.

Religion either accepts or rejects the assertion, "I Am the Truth..." With religion, it is ALL a matter of faith.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

I have been told atheism is not a religion.

A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Mother nature is the naturalists deity.

My own opinion is that an atheist must ultimately make an assertion based upon faith. I think agnosticism is a more honest and a more humble approach. The agnostic simply says, "I don't know..."

The atheist will ultimately assert, "I do know...!" I don't see how the atheist could possibly be certain.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Dawkin's board was "closed." So you posted a question about the closing of the board, on the board itself? And then they deleted your post from the board that had been "closed" all along?

How cruelly you must have suffered.



The "evolution is a religion" argument never seems to offer any facts to support its view. We are left only with an argument by analogy. "Both the words 'evolution' and 'religion' contain the letter 'E' - thus, they are the same!"

The fact of the matter is, there are no "sacred cows" in science, as there are in religion. Every opinion and testimony is held up to scrutiny and hashed out endlessly. The modern "Theory of Evolution" has stood up to a more vociferous debate than such religious claims as "Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch" and other Fundamentalist claims.

The University of Paris (The Sorbonne) had never even seated a Darwinist as the head of its School of Evolutionary Biology until 1959! The French were absolutely adamant that the "English" theory of Darwinism could not have overturned their beloved Lamarck. And yet, eventually the better theory won out.

"Science" asks, "What's the truth?" and then studies every angle without regard to the personal feelings or positions held by the various advocates.

Religion either accepts or rejects the assertion, "I Am the Truth..." With religion, it is ALL a matter of faith.

I posted the actual question on the board when it was up and running. Like i clearly indicated, It was deleted.

No suffering. Evolution is still a theory?
I notice there are many different schools or groups of theories. The First Church of Darwin actually had a church split a few years ago. neo darwinism claims to be the Orthodox unit.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by pelathais

My own opinion is that an atheist must ultimately make an assertion based upon faith. I think agnosticism is a more honest and a more humble approach. The agnostic simply says, "I don't know..."

The atheist will ultimately assert, "I do know...!" I don't see how the atheist could possibly be certain.

Agree with you there. With faith removed from the equation, neither side can be factually certain, until the point an individual passes on and experiences either result for himself.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

My own opinion is that an atheist must ultimately make an assertion based upon faith. I think agnosticism is a more honest and a more humble approach. The agnostic simply says, "I don't know..."

The atheist will ultimately assert, "I do know...!" I don't see how the atheist could possibly be certain.

And evolution takes more faith than does a Special creation.

Darwin prophesied we would find all the transitional fossils.

From the scientific proofs of 21st century, it now appears that Darwin was very foresighted indeed! 150 years ago, he said, “There is even not one single transitional fossil.” And now, millions of fossil specimens confirm that there is NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL WHATSOEVER! Darwin’s legacy has been proven right! On the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth, we congratulate Darwin on his prudence and on this important prediction.

Here is a prophesy

Darwin staked his entire theory on the belief that a species could never suddenly appear. He said, “If numerous species, belonging to the same … families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.”6

Religions have prophets.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

That is exactly why Evolution is presented as a religion.

Teleology
The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

Both the religions of Christianity and naturalism/darwinism offer answers.
How did we come about being here? what is our Purpose and where are we going. Religion discusses teleology.

I have been called intellectually dishonest. Yes I know what i am talking about. I also am not naive regarding the agenda of the evolutionists.

It woulld be dishonest to act like we don't know what is going on.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/creationism-law

The goals of Eugenie Scott are to get people fired that mention religion and creation in the classroom. Religion is a threat to the false religion of evolutionism. She names the court cases. It will not get a biiology teacher fired if they attack Religion.

Biological evolution doesn't even propose to try and answer the ultimate "why?" questions about the appearance of design. It simply records observations of nature and helps to organize the facts into a cohesive paradigm.

For example, "Why" and "how" do birds fly? They fly, in part, to escape predators on the ground. They fly to reach different feeding areas as the seasons change. For all we know, they may also fly just for the fun of it. Ever notice the birds that dive in front of your car at times?

Biological evolution can explain the development of feathers, the ancestry of feathered dinosaurs from the Cretaceous era and the development of characteristics needed for flight. It cannot answer and never proposes to answer the question of, "Why do birds and their ground based ancestors even exist at all?"